BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin townhome construction expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin condominiums expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin Medical building expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin condominium expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin landscaping construction expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin casino resort expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin retail construction expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin production housing expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin concrete tilt-up expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin structural steel construction expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin housing expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin low-income housing expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin custom home expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin multi family housing expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin high-rise construction expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin custom homes expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin mid-rise construction expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin office building expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin Subterranean parking expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin hospital construction expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin parking structure expert witness Thiensville Wisconsin
    Thiensville Wisconsin forensic architectThiensville Wisconsin contractor expert witnessThiensville Wisconsin architectural engineering expert witnessThiensville Wisconsin construction project management expert witnessThiensville Wisconsin expert witnesses fenestrationThiensville Wisconsin building expertThiensville Wisconsin defective construction expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Thiensville, Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB448 specifies 90 day notice with details and evidence prior to commencing legal action. It provides for a 15 day written response from contractor or 25 days if cross-claims against subcontractors; The law states “The claimant and contractor or supplier are bound by any contractor or supplier warranty terms pertaining to products or services supplied for the dwelling.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Thiensville Wisconsin

    Contractors are required to have the correct credentials for their trade. Not all classifications require credentialing. For a list of credentials, see the website.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Wisconsin Builders Association (State)
    Local # 5100
    4868 High Crossing Blvd
    Madison, WI 53704

    Thiensville Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Metro Builders Association of Gr Milwaukee
    Local # 5148
    N16 W23321 Stoneridge Dr
    Waukesha, WI 53188

    Thiensville Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Madison Area Builders Association
    Local # 5132
    5936 Seminole Centre Ct
    Madison, WI 53711

    Thiensville Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Mid Wisconsin Home Builders Association
    Local # 5181
    PO Box 865
    Portage, WI 53901

    Thiensville Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lakeland Builders Association
    Local # 5128
    1560 N Country Club Pkwy
    Elkhorn, WI 53121

    Thiensville Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Racine-Kenosha Builders Association
    Local # 5156
    PO Box 706
    Sturtevant, WI 53177

    Thiensville Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    South Central Wisconsin Builders Association
    Local # 5140
    PO Box 563
    Janesville, WI 53547

    Thiensville Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Thiensville Wisconsin


    Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?

    The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    Trump Replaces Architect to Lead $300 Million Ballroom Design

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses Waiver and Estoppel in Context of Suit Limitation Provision in Property Policy

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Construction Projects and Subrogation: Timing is Everything

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    Engineer Proposes Slashing Scope of Millennium Tower Pile Upgrade

    Default, Fraud, and VCPA (Oh My!)

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claim and Further Denies Motion to Exclude Insured's Expert

    To Require Arbitration or Not To Require Arbitration

    Top Developments 2025 - Issue 4

    Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Strategy for Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Rights

    Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays

    Water Alone is Not Property Damage under a CGL policy in Connecticut

    Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Exclusion Bars Coverage For Cosmetic Hail Damage to Roof

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Your Excess Policy May Not “Follow Form” to Your Primary Policy’s Aggregate Limits: How to Avoid a Multi-Million Dollar Mistake

    Quick Note: Burden of Proving and Defending All Risk Property Insurance Claims

    GRSM Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2026

    Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    GRSM Offices Earn Top Recognitions in 2025 Lists by The Business Journals Regional Publications

    Reckless Disregard is. . . Well. . .Reckless

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    Harrisburg Sought Support Before Ruinous Incinerator Retrofit

    The Brooklyn Condominium That’s Reinventing Outdoor Common Space

    IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process

    Seattle Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Real Estate Broker Professional Liability Action

    The “Climate 21 Project” Prepared for the New Administration

    Claim Against Broker Survives Motion to Dismiss
    Corporate Profile

    THIENSVILLE WISCONSIN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Thiensville, Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Thiensville's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Thiensville, Wisconsin

    Newark Team Obtains Appellate Ruling Affirming Summary Judgment for Lawyer and Firm in Professional Negligence Lawsuit

    April 14, 2026 —
    Newark Partner Meredith Kaplan Stoma and Associate Anthony Doss recently secured a decision from the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirming summary judgment for their clients, a lawyer and her firm, in a lawsuit alleging professional negligence in connection with the administration of a commercial loan. The circumstances giving rise to the lawsuit date back to September 2020, when the plaintiff was approached by members of a real estate investment company regarding a short-term loan opportunity whereby he would loan the company $200,000. The company provided the plaintiff with a “bridge loan package,” which stated that the requested funds would be held in the escrow account of their counsel and her firm (Lewis Brisbois’ clients), and returned to him with interest within six months once the company was “capitalized” by a senior lender. The company subsequently prepared two notes, each for $100,000, in connection with the agreement. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros Secure a $0.00 Settlement on a Multimillion-Dollar Construction Defect Case!

    April 14, 2026 —
    Partner Jeffrey Saab and Team Leader D. Ryan Efros’ client was a construction supervisor on a palatial mansion. The homeowners claimed millions of dollars in damages and asserted the client was a general contractor (GC) and so responsible for the alleged defects. Jeff and Ryan took more than 15 depositions, reinforcing their trial strategy theme: that the client was not a GC, but Plaintiffs were. They secured significant concessions from Plaintiffs, pressed Plaintiffs’ own negligent construction choices, and made the risk of trying the case intolerable. On the eve of trial, Plaintiffs backed down, settling out Jeff and Ryan’s client for $0.00. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Location, Location, Location — But Which One? The Few Words in Your Construction Contract that Pick Where You Fight

    June 29, 2026 —
    Most professionals know the old real estate line: location, location, location. It turns out to be just as true for construction contracts as it is for property. Consider a recent case involving a project owner that hired two design firms for a project. When issues arose during construction, the owner sued the design firms in state court in Brazoria County, Texas, pursuant to the forum selection clause in the parties’ contracts. The defendants then removed the case to the federal district court in Galveston, a courthouse in a different county. But the owner wanted the case back in Brazoria County state court. Whether it got its wish came down to two words in the contract: “situated in.” This article is about words like those. A construction contract’s forum selection clause names the place for the fight nobody plans to have, and where that fight happens can shape how it goes. This article explains why the wording in your forum selection clause deserves careful reading before you sign a construction contract. It is not a deep dive into the mechanics of federal removal jurisdiction, and it is not an academic comparison of the terms “forum” and “venue.” Instead, it is a practical look at how courts actually read these clauses, so the location of a future fight is the one you intended. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brad Sands, Jones Walker, LLP
    Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

    AI in AEC 2026: Doing AI Right and Rethinking Your Business Model

    April 08, 2026 —
    The sixth AI at the AEC 2026 conference showcased the evolution of AI discussions. There were, naturally, many talks about software and technologies. But more than before, there were conversations about realizing AI’s business value. Two themes appeared in nearly every session I attended. First, many companies struggle with AI adoption, not because they lack tools, but because their thinking isn’t right. Second, when AI works, it disrupts the business model that brought them there. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

    April 20, 2026 —
    In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    New York Enacts First-in-the-Nation Statewide Data Center Moratorium

    August 03, 2026 —
    As of May 2026, nearly 12 gigawatts of data center load requests were in the New York Independent System Operator interconnection queue, with more than two-thirds of capacity requests entering the queue in 2025 alone. On July 14, 2026, in response to concerns over this rapid growth, Governor Kathy Hochul issued Executive Order No. 62 (the “Order”) imposing a temporary moratorium on data centers in New York State. Among the concerns cited in the Order are the cost burden on ratepayers associated with transmission upgrades required to accommodate large loads, potential environmental impacts, and large-scale water use. The moratorium is intended to halt activities while the state government develops a comprehensive legal framework for data center development. While dozens of municipal and county-level moratoriums are in place throughout the U.S., and while the legislatures of several states, including Maine, have proposed moratoriums, the Order is the first statewide moratorium to be enacted nationally. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua L. Sturtevant, Sheppard
    Mr. Sturtevant may be contacted at jsturtevant@sheppard.com

    Additional Insureds Owed a Defense in Underlying Personal Injury Suit

    March 03, 2026 —
    The court granted partial summary judgment on the duty to defend to two additional insureds who were named as defendants in the underlying personal injury suit. In re Third St. Equity, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234909 (E.D. N. Y. Dec. 2, 2025). Third Street Equity LLD hired Developing NY State, LLC as the contractor for a construction project. Developing NY entered a subcontract agreement with Capital Source Concrete NY LLC for concrete work as well as labor and services for a construction project. The subcontract required that Capital Concrete keep the construction site free of debris, waste material or rubbish. Further, Capital Concrete was responsible for compliance with OSHA safety regulations. It was also agreed that Capital Concrete would obtain liability and workers compensation insurance naming Third Street and Developing NY as additional insureds. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    'Drywall Isn't Light': Peter Lupo on Safety Management at Standard Drywall

    May 26, 2026 —
    Peter Lupo has been safety director since 2019 at San Diego-based Standard Drywall Inc., a major wall and ceiling contractor. He draws on over two decades of safety experience across a wide range of commercial construction work, having previously served as safety director for general contractor T.B. Penick & Sons. He has also previously operated Peter Lupo Consulting, where he reviewed legal cases and provided expert testimony, and blogged on safety for ENR.com. Lupo recently spoke to ENR Correspondent Elaine Silver about the weight of drywall, heat hazard control, bilingual crews and how he supports safety creativity and learning on the Standard Drywall staff. The conversation has been edited. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com